European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 7 of 84 · 2,007 total
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European patent EP 2 671 173, which relates to a system for browsing the Internet by walking to discover location-based search results. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claimed subject matter lacked novelty and inventive step over prior art, particularly in view of document 'BP07' alone and in combination with 'BP08' and 'BP16'.
Angelalign Technology Inc. et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Angelalign sought discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690, which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and exhibits from Angelalign's Rejoinder. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, dismissed the request, finding that Angelalign had failed to substantiate why the impugned order was manifestly erroneous and that allowing the request would disrupt the scheduled first-instance oral hearing.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This case concerns an application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) by the defendants (Xiaomi entities) against the claimant (Nera Innovations Ltd.) in proceedings before the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court. The defendants sought reimbursement of their representation costs in an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP concerning service of process, as well as a portion of court fees for the nullity counterclaim. The court partially granted the application, setting the reimbursable representation costs, court fees for the counterclaim at EUR 3,800, and ordering each party to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
This case concerns an application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) by the defendants in appeal proceedings under Rule 220.2 RoP before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court. The defendants sought reimbursement of their representation costs from the appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_205/2024, APL 24585/2024), in which the Court of Appeal had confirmed the Local Chamber's order rejecting service on Xiaomi entities through their German subsidiary. The court partially granted the application, setting reimbursement amounts for representation costs and court fees for the invalidity counterclaim, while rejecting further claims and ordering each party to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd a.o.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3258692 was filed by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities. The claimant subsequently applied to withdraw the action against all defendants before the closure of the written procedure. The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG challenged the European Patent Office's (EPO) decision rejecting its request for unitary effect for European Patent 3 327 608. The EPO had refused the request because the patent was not granted with the same claims for all 25 participating member states, as Malta could not be designated when the parent application was filed in 2005. The Unified Patent Court (Paris Central Division) dismissed the application, holding that the unitary effect must cover all participating member states at the time of grant and request, and that the refusal did not violate fundamental rights or non-discrimination principles.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
VMR Products LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 456 214 relating to a vaporizer (electronic cigarette), appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division that revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, confirming that the patent's claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claims, lack an inventive step over the prior art, particularly the Pan reference. VMR Products was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH and Others
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese claimant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division, requested simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. The Defendants did not object to Canon engaging an interpreter at its own expense but opposed court-organised interpretation and associated costs. The court applied a two-stage test and held that while allowing simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, as Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor of the Local Division.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon sought suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP for its appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that prohibited Amazon from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court that would impede InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Klaus Grabinski, dismissed Amazon's request, finding that Amazon had not demonstrated the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that irreversible harm was imminent.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno applied for leave to appeal a cost decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, which had ordered Suinno to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft following Microsoft's successful infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. Suinno sought to reduce the awarded costs to EUR 137,815.80. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, holding that the awarded costs were proportionate and within the applicable ceiling, and that the judge-rapporteur had conducted a thorough and detailed assessment.
Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of an application for rehearing filed by Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited against Syngenta Limited concerning patent EP 2 152 073. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal following settlement discussions, and the court ordered a 60% reimbursement of the 2,500 € court fee (1,500 €) to Sumi while dismissing the remainder of their requests, including the request for a full waiver of fees.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 905 730. The Defendants (Samsung entities) filed requests to produce their own licence agreement with a third party and to file further written submissions regarding new developments in licence negotiations and their own third-party licence agreements. The court dismissed these requests as belated, holding that the front-loaded procedure required the Defendants to make such submissions and production requests at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 against multiple defendants. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs and seeking reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 11,400) to the claimant.
Valéo Systèmes d'Essuyages v.Robert Bosch GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Central Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary objection on jurisdiction and language of proceedings. The court held that the Central Division of Paris lacked jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement action filed by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, and ordered the case transferred to the Local Division of Düsseldorf with English as the language of proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 471 419 was filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. against six defendants before the Mannheim Local Division. The claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with most defendants consenting and one defendant (ASD SAS) not participating. The court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning the withdrawal of an appeal and reimbursement of court fees. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw the appeal before the Statement of Response was lodged, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to the appellant, Lindal Dispenser GmbH.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 645 714 was brought by NEC Corporation against eight defendants before the Mannheim Local Division. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, and most defendants consented. The court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, set the value in dispute at EUR 1,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
Sun Patent Trust v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
This was an infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 903 267. The plaintiff, Sun Patent Trust, filed a request on December 16, 2025 to withdraw the action against all eight defendants and to have 60% of the court fees refunded. Most defendants consented to the withdrawal and the proposed cost arrangement, while one defendant did not appear. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA and Others
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 3186937, involving a patent infringement action by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, and Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Vantiva entities. Before the written proceedings were concluded, both the main action and the counterclaim were withdrawn by the respective parties with the consent of the opposing sides. The court allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, dispensed with a cost decision per the parties' agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP (Applicant) in Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for access to written pleadings and evidence in the concluded proceedings Insulet Corporation v. EOFLow Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_768/2024) concerning EP 4 201 327. Both Insulet and EOFLow opposed the request, arguing lack of standing, purely commercial interest, confidentiality protections, GDPR data protection, and copyright concerns. The Court of Appeal granted access to Insulet's Statement of Appeal and a redacted version of EOFLow's Statement of Response, finding that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public and that the applicant's interest in understanding the court's decision was a legitimate general interest.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al. v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court confirmed an ex-parte order that prohibited Amazon entities from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court aimed at blocking InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court rejected Amazon's application to review the order, finding that InterDigital's RAND declaration to the ITU-T did not give Amazon a contractual right to an interim license enforceable in the UK, and that the UPC's jurisdiction over European patents in its territory had to be respected.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against three Vantiva entities regarding European Patent EP 3 353 901, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Vantiva entities against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, both the main action and the counterclaim were withdrawn by the respective parties with the consent of the opposing parties. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, dispensed with a cost decision per the parties' agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to both sides.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
Viatris Santé appealed a procedural order from the Paris Local Division that had disregarded certain late-filed exhibits from its rejoinder in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz. However, the Paris Local Division subsequently issued a final order rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures entirely, rendering Viatris's procedural appeal devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal under R. 360 RoP, noting that Viatris could still seek admission of the exhibits in Merz's separate appeal against the final order.